You are so sad SAM. You talk about all sorts of things other than your original response to my original post on this subject.
I will "cut and paste" my "original post" so that we all can see just how it relates to your continuing "tirade"

Quote
“Were they "breath tested" for being "under the influence"?? If it was a car accident instead of "at sea" being in control of a car whilst "under the influence" is an offence is it not?
In most countries today the same applies to being in control of a boat whilst "under the influence" and carries similar penalties as the loss of life can occur through "impaired awareness". A crime is a crime - no matter how many taxes you pay!”
End quote

As you can see SAM, I never said that
1. I was an expert on law; My QUESTION was whether or not they were breath tested. SAM this was a QUESTION not any sort of statement of “the law”
2. Next I made the (undeniable) STATEMENT that being under the influence while driving a car IS A CRIME. I presume that you have no argument against that coming from either an “expert” or a “non expert”
3. For hundreds of years the laws at sea (or on water) whilst in control of a vessel have been far greater and more consistently “regulated” than equivalent land based laws. You don’t have to be any sort of “expert” on law to be AWARE of that (AWARE SAM not expert). Even quite young children, when first being exposed to “history” are subjected to that reality. (well, in Australia they are, I was, my children were, and my grandchildren are)
4. And then a statement of pure, undeniable fact that "A crime is a crime - no matter how many taxes you pay!”

I find it difficult to see why you were so “incensed” over this innocuous posting.